ArticleBMJ open2023
Quality assurance in surgical trials of arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDecisions regarding the optimal vascular access for haemodialysis patients are becoming increasingly complex, and the provision of vascular access is open to variations in systems of care as well as surgical experience and practice. Two main surgical options are recognised: arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft (AVG). All recommendations regarding AVG are based on a limited number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is essential that when considering an RCT of a surgical procedure, an appropriate definition of quality assurance (QA) is made for both the new approach and the comparator, otherwise replication of results or implementation into clinical practice may differ from published results. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the methodological quality of RCT involving AVG, and the QA measures implemented in delivering interventions in these trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify relevant literature. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected will pertain to generic measures of QA, credentialing of investigators, procedural standardisation and performance monitoring. Trial methodology will be compared against a standardised template developed by a multinational, multispecialty review body with experience in vascular access. A narrative approach will be taken to synthesise and report data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, with the ultimate aim of providing recommendations for future RCT of AVG design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.